I've decided that since everyone and their cousin's Uncle's brother's Step-Nephew has weighed in on the primary flap... Why not join in?
There seems to have been a big to-do over yesterday's frontpaged pieces that said Senator Obama slammed Vice-President Gore and Senator Kerry with the following remarks*:
"I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000,"
"I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats. We've done that in 2004 and 2000. 47 percent of the country on one side, 47 percent of the country on the other . . . We don't need another one of those elections."
Since I don't get a meaningful primary vote this election and I have no idea who I'd vote for even if I did; I just couldn't help but join the fray... Basically because I'm just an argumentative sort... and I think pretty much all sides of this argument are wrong.
* I've included both reported versions of Senator Obama's remarks, because if Senator Obama did in fact make either of these statements, or any variation thereof... My argument stays the same. If the reporting on Senator Obama's statements is wrong and he didn't state in any way, shape, or form that close Presidential election results are historically odd or an anomaly, I apologize to Senator Obama in advance for the following diary, which would be unfair to him under those circumstances.
I think kos was wrong because I don't really see the Senator's remarks as a "slam" against either Vice-President Gore or Senator Kerry... I just don't see that as a slam, or really even an insult. Sorry, just don't see it.
My problem with Senator Obama's statement (if he did make it) is that it's just a ridiculous thing to say...
United States Presidential Election Results
# | Year | Winner | Percentage |
---|
55 | 2004 | Bush | 50.73% |
54 | 2000 | Bush | 47.87% |
53 | 1996 | Clinton | 49.23% |
52 | 1992 | Clinton | 43.01% |
51 | 1988 | Bush Sr. | 53.37% |
50 | 1984 | Regan | 58.77% |
49 | 1980 | Regan | 50.75% |
48 | 1976 | Carter | 50.08% |
47 | 1972 | Nixon | 60.67% |
46 | 1968 | Nixon | 43.42% |
45 | 1964 | Johnson | 61.05% |
44 | 1960 | Kennedy | 49.72% |
43 | 1956 | Eisenhower | 57.37% |
42 | 1952 | Eisenhower | 55.18% |
41 | 1948 | Truman | 49.55% |
40 | 1944 | Roosevelt | 53.39% |
39 | 1940 | Roosevelt | 54.74% |
38 | 1936 | Roosevelt | 60.80% |
37 | 1932 | Roosevelt | 57.41% |
36 | 1928 | Hoover | 58.21% |
35 | 1924 | Coolidge | 54.04% |
34 | 1920 | Harding | 60.32% |
33 | 1916 | Wilson | 49.24% |
32 | 1912 | Wilson | 41.84% |
31 | 1908 | Taft | 51.57% |
30 | 1904 | T. Roosevelt | 56.42% |
29 | 1900 | McKinley | 51.64% |
28 | 1896 | McKinley | 51.02% |
27 | 1892 | Cleveland | 46.02% |
26 | 1888 | Harrison | 47.80% |
25 | 1884 | Cleveland | 48.85% |
24 | 1880 | Garfield | 48.31% |
23 | 1876 | Hayes | 47.92% |
22 | 1872 | Grant | 55.58% |
21 | 1868 | Grant | 52.66% |
20 | 1864 | Lincoln | 55.03% |
19 | 1860 | Lincoln | 39.65% |
18 | 1856 | Buchanan | 45.29% |
17 | 1852 | Pierce | 50.83% |
16 | 1848 | Taylor | 47.28% |
15 | 1844 | Polk | 49.54% |
14 | 1840 | Harrison | 52.87% |
13 | 1836 | Van Buren | 50.79% |
12 | 1832 | Jackson | 54.74% |
11 | 1828 | Jackson | 55.93% |
10 | 1824 | Adams | 32.18% |
9 | 1820 | Monroe | 98.3% |
8 | 1816 | Monroe | 82.8% |
7 | 1812 | Maddison | 58.7% |
6 | 1808 | Maddison | 69.3% |
5 | 1804 | Jefferson | 92.0% |
4 | 1800 | Jefferson | 52.9% |
3 | 1796 | Adams | 51.4% |
2 | 1792 | Washington | 97.8% |
1 | 1789 | Washington | 85.2% |
* Italics denote over 50%
** Bold italics denote over 55%
*** Underlined denotes Presidential elections that took place when the United States had under 25 states.
There's pretty much always been around half of the country disagreeing with the other half. Only 34 of the 55 winning Presidential candidates in our Nation's entire history have ever gotten over 50% of the popular vote. 21 Presidents became President with less than half of the voting citizens casting a vote in their favor.
Of those 34 winning Presidential candidates that have won with over 50%, only 20 have managed to get over 55% of the popular vote. Only ten of those 20 have gotten 60% or more of the popular vote and 7 of those ten elections took place when there were less than 25 States in the Union.
I just can't emphasize this enough, so I'll say it again...
In the past 219 years our Nation has held 55 Presidential elections and only 10 of those elections has seen the victor manage 60% or more of the vote.
And this is my real problem with the Senator's reported statements on past Presidential election results... I think pretty much anyway you look at it, it was an odd thing for the Senator to say.
To make such a statement the Senator had to be:
- Unaware of the history behind our Nation's Presidential elections.
- Aware of the history and claiming the 2000 and 2004 Presidential election results were an anomaly anyway.
- Under the belief that the citizens of our Nation are going to magically come to an overwhelming consensus for the first time in 188 years.
I don't believe #1 for a second. Senator Obama is a very smart man and I'm positive he's aware of our nation's divided political history.
Number 2 would technically be correct, because of the Supreme Court decision of 2000 and the reported election fraud during both elections... Except if the Senator's statements were reported accurately, Senator Obama wasn't referring to the scandals attached to the 2000 and 2004 elections.
He was saying that the country was so unusually divided and that was the problems with those elections and that's a dishonest claim to make, because barring the election fraud, etcetera... The results of those elections weren't all that unusual when compared with the results of past elections. The simple fact is, we've basically always been a pretty evenly politically divided country.
I'm inclined to think that #3 is the most likely answer for the Senator's reported statement... and that really bothers me for some reason that I can't quite figure out.
If you look back throughout history, you'll notice that people tend to disagree and yes, those sentiments seem spill over into their political preferences... It's just kind of the way it works. Human nature and all that... I guess it just really bothers me to think that Senator Obama might think that human nature is going to drastically change over the next 11 months. That he might believe that some mysterious aliment is going to afflict Democratic and Republican voters and we're all going to suddenly break out in some big love fest; really just rubs me the wrong way.
I like to think of myself as an optimist, but I also try to live in the real world... and the real world keeps reminding me of those 10 elections out of 55. I don't agree with the repub's political views and they don't agree with mine and that's just the way it is.
If a repub agreed with my political views, they wouldn't vote for repub candidates and wouldn't be a republican at all, they'd be a Democrat... and vice-versa... and to be perfectly honest, I don't think I'd like a world that was any different. Nor do I think I'd like a candidate that would appeal to wide swaths of republican voters... As a matter of fact, I KNOW I wouldn't like them, because they'd be a republican and I don't like republican candidates... It's kind of the reason why I'm a Democrat.
So anyway, there's my 2 cents on the whole brouhaha.
(Full disclosure, if I did get a primary vote that counted I would probably vote for either Obama or Edwards. I have an Obama '08 sticker on my car and that is the only sticker I have for a Presidential primary candidate.)